Easterling v. English Point Riding Stables

Summary of Opinion

This is an opinion from a trial court. Easterling was injured while
receiving riding instruction at English Point Riding Stables. She claimed the accident was
the fault of the riding instructor. The stables claimed that Easterling could not sue
because (1) she signed a release of liability and (2) a Louisiana statute says the horse
provider is not liable in this situation. The stables then asked the trial court to grant
a summary judgment in its favor: to declare it the winner without having to stand trial.
In this opinion, the trial court explains why it will not do that. As a result of this
opinion, the parties will either settle the case or it will be tried.

Text of Opinion

Plaintiff has filed suit seeking damages for injuries she allegedly suffered as a
result of falling from a horse during horse back riding lessons provided to her by
defendant, English Point Riding Stables, Inc. Defendant has filed a motion for summary
judgment contending it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because "La.R.S.
9:2795.1 limits the liability of an equine activity sponsor and because the plaintiff, an
attorney, signed a Release and Hold Harmless Agreement pursuant to which the plaintiff
assumed the risks inherent in horse back activities."

La.R.S. 9:2795.1(B) provides: "An equine activity sponsor ... shall not be liable
for an injury to or the death of a participant resulting from the inherent risks of equine
activities and, except as provided in Subsection C of this Section, no participant ...
shall make any claim against, maintain an action against, or recover from an equine
activity sponsor ... for injury, loss, damage, or death of the participant resulting from
any of the inherent risks of equine activities."

Plaintiff contends, however, that several of the exceptions contained in L.A.R.S.
9:2795.1(C) prevent the defendant from taking advantage of the statute's limitation of
liability. Paragraph C provides in pertinent part:

(C) Nothing in Subsection B of this Section shall prevent or limit the liability of an
equine activity sponsor ... if the equine activity sponsor ... either: (1) Provided the
equipment or tack, and knew or should have known that the equipment or tack was faulty,
and such equipment or tack was faulty to the extent that it did cause the injury. (2)
Failed to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant
to engage safely in the equine activity and to safely manage the particular equine based
on the participant's representations of his ability.... (4) Commits an act or omission
that constitutes willful and wanton disregard for the safety of the participant, and that
act or omission caused the injury.

After reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties, the Court finds there are
genuine issues of material fact in dispute which preclude summary judgment. For example,
one such issue is whether defendant failed to safely manage the particular equine
plaintiff was riding ("Tinder") based upon plaintiff's abilities. Denise Jones,
the instructor at the time of plaintiff's fall, testified that plaintiff fell because the
horse bolted while plaintiff was learning to ride the horse at a trot. Ms. Jones testified
that "[t]he possibility existed that a horse coming over the jump hit the jump and
that the noise made from that may have startled Tinder." Plaintiff's expert opines
that the instructor should not have conducted the lesson "in close proximity to where
other horses [were] working when there was a safer area they could have moved to" and
should not have "start[ed] to trot the horse on a lunge line under questionable
control with a very apprehensive rider, when the instructor could have kept the horse
under her immediate control with a short lead line."

In addition, factual questions exist concerning whether the martingale which broke
during plaintiff's fall was a faulty piece of tack; if so, whether defendant knew or
should have known that the martingale was faulty; and, if so, whether the faulty tack was
the cause of plaintiff's injuries. It is undisputed that the martingale was broken during
plaintiff's fall, and defendant concedes that the martingale was "well used."
Also, Denise Jones testified that she told plaintiff she could use the martingale to
"help her stabilize her balance."

Finally, these factual issues pertain to risks not inherent in horse back activities
which would, therefore, not have been assumed by plaintiff in the Release and Hold
Harmless Agreement she entered with defendant.